Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has declined to direct NALSAR University of Law to let an MBA student appear for supplementary examinations after she was barred from the main exams over a shortage of attendance caused by prolonged illness, holding that sympathy cannot override mandatory academic rules.
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi ruled that a student who is barred from writing term-end examinations for want of attendance is, under the university’s own rules, also ineligible to appear for the supplementary exams meant to give students a second chance.
“Sympathy or equitable considerations cannot override the mandatory academic rules, which are uniformly applicable to all the students,” the High Court observed, adding that courts have very limited power to intervene in academic matters such as examination eligibility.
Viral pneumonia among other ailments: Student
The petitioner, a first-year MBA student at NALSAR, had challenged the university’s refusal to issue her a hall ticket for her semester-II supplementary examinations. She told the court that she had suffered from viral pneumonia, a lower respiratory tract infection, severe dehydration and other ailments through February and March 2026, which caused her attendance to fall short of the required level.
She argued that being denied permission to appear would force her to repeat her entire first year, despite her illness being genuine, and that the university’s own rules allowed authorities discretion to grant relaxation in deserving cases through medical leave.
The student said that after recovering, her parents had written to the university seeking a waiver, referred to in the rules as “condonation,” of her attendance shortfall and that the head of her department had initially assured her she would be allowed to write the supplementary exams. However, she was later told that since she had more than four subjects pending as a result of being barred from the main exams, she would have to repeat the first year altogether.
What NALSAR said
NALSAR opposed her plea, telling the court that its rules require students to maintain at least 75 per cent attendance to sit for end-term exams and a minimum of 67 per cent even for those granted medical leave.
It said the petitioner’s actual attendance was only 52 per cent, well short of either threshold, and that its rules clearly bar students who are barred for attendance shortage from appearing in repeat or supplementary exams. The university also pointed out that the student had neither sought medical leave in advance through the proper process nor challenged her exclusion from the April 2026 end-of-term exams at the time it happened.
The High Court noted that even by the student’s own account, her attendance stood at only 56 per cent, which was still below the 67 per cent minimum required even with medical leave, and held that she had rightly been barred from the term-end exams under the university’s attendance rule.
The court also noted that her parents’ representation seeking a waiver was submitted only on July 6, the very day the supplementary exams began, even though they had already been informed on July 4 that she would have to repeat the year, and that she had not challenged this decision until after the exams were underway.
While acknowledging that the ruling would cost the student an academic year and cause her financial hardship, the court held that such consequences could not justify directing the university to act against its own regulations. Finding no arbitrariness in the university’s decision, it dismissed her petition.
| 
